| 1 |
On 8/12/2010, at 6:29am, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
>> I'm usually slow at updating my gentoo machine, and I think I was |
| 3 |
>> behind by about a month from last update. Anyways, I noticed that the |
| 4 |
>> recent pambase-20101024 has pam_permit optional on for auth, account |
| 5 |
>> and password in /etc/pam.d/system-auth. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> That didn't sound real neat, so Iooked it up in the manual and it says |
| 8 |
>> "very dangerous, use with extreme caution." |
| 9 |
> ... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The pam maintainer usually blogs about his changes: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I read a little because I was interested. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
To be more specific, this entry mentions pam_permit: |
| 19 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/10/24/new-pambase-choices |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This entry seems to suggest that Portage makes automated /etc configurations problematic: |
| 22 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/04/29/pambase-is-not-that-free |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Stroller |
Archives